Samsung wins appeal, Australian Galaxy Tab 10.1 injunction overturned(abc.net.au)
abc.net.au
Samsung wins appeal, Australian Galaxy Tab 10.1 injunction overturned
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-30/samsung-wins-apple-appeal/3704158
3 comments
This seems to capture the general flavour of the ruling:
If I were in the market for a tablet I would certainly look at the the Galaxy Tab.
If Apple considers them their biggest threat, then that's quite an endorsement.
If Apple considers them their biggest threat, then that's quite an endorsement.
They were the biggest threat at the time the lawsuit was filed. I think the target will be changing to Amazon and ASUS in the near future.
Just started looking at it, but I like this bit from the initial list of court orders:
7. The respondents pay the appellants’ costs of and
incidental to the application for leave to appeal and the
appeal.
The appellants are Samsung and the respondents are Apple. I don't know about Australia, but in the US winning court costs tends to be a big deal.In line with what inclinedplane said, I've always found it strange that costs are generally not awarded in US legal culture. Awarding costs takes a lot of the momentum out of strategic and extortive lawsuit practices, and gives people a lot more incentive to settle out of court - a practice that's broadly regarded as a good thing. If anyone knows a reason it's not done, I'd be interested to hear it.
"Loser pays" is the norm for most of the world outside the US.